I'm half joking because the situation is quite bizarre and I never encountered anything like that.

Where I live usually it takes a few eyewitnesses testifying for a police to take someone into custody for a few hours and give them a talk (like general "don't do it again or next time we will detain you for a 15 days" talk). And after a few talks, they would generally really just detain someone (it's different from a criminal record)

Not to mention the owner could just ban a person thatch bad for business. Or just install a camera, since police demands a proof.

From your retelling it seems like not only owner doesn't give a damn about it being bad for business, it's actually isn't even bad for business! You still go there, your friends still go there (do they know that you fear for your life filming the evidence of abuse for police to take action? Surely a friend would help you film this. Or at least be sympathetic enough not to go to a place where you fear for your life?).

I'm not saying anything about your testimony, but from your words alone it really seems like you life on a different plane of reality from everyone around you.

To hear you tell it, you can genuinely be killed or assaulted but everyone (including your friends??) is okay with that. And – most confusingly – you yourself is also okay with that?

I can't just wrap my head around that. If I feared for my life and health, I would just not go there, and fuck my friends for suggesting to risk it. Are you suicidal? Is that a missing piece of puzzle? Because even when I try to believe you, those pieces do not fit together.

Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

Children have different labor restrictions than adults.

Police have different gun access than civilians.

Businesses pay a different set of taxes than individuals.

And allowing businesses to do camera surveillance when you enter their property is in no way the same as allowing everyone to videotape each other at all times covertly and without consent. I really can't understand what process of reasoning could even get you there, besides "equal rights absolutism," which makes no sense.

Jesus Christ what a dystopia

> Please stop using ad hominem attacks, this is not the appropriate forum for such remarks.

I feel quite strongly about people nonconsensually filming other people in public spaces. The proliferation of guides about disabling the indicators of active camera on smart glasses make me even more hesitant to normalize or condone such behavior.

> I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.

Stealing an Amazon package from your porch is also illegal in most jurisdictions yet police won't do anything with a video from your Ring doorbell showing some generic young-dude-in-a-baseball-cap-and-a-hoodie taking it away. They are only interested in such videos when investigating (what they consider) serious crimes.

> especially if it's happening to minors

You want minors to wear Meta glasses and film all the time? I shudder imagining growing up in such dystopia.

> I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.

Sorry, that was a snark about how people who support installing smart doorbells and Flock cameras everywhere imagine police would react to a video showing someone stealing a bag from their car or a package from their porch.

I suspect the OP is being somewhat sarcastic because it is widely known that the police will do absolutely nothing about a report of catcalling, video or not.

> I'm not a fan of rules that aren't concrete

Then you are going to have a hard time in a society filled with other humans, or living with a legal system that takes human complexity and grey areas into account in so many different ways.

Outside of a parser or a maths class, rules are rarely that concrete.

(Reading your other comments, I am sorry that your experiences have lead you to be so scared going about your day to day life that you think recording every interaction is a necessary thing to do. I'm afraid you're not going to find a lot of people who agree with that, and many who will find the idea very intrusive, though I suspect you're far from the only one in your position.

FYI if you go down this route, in some countries it is a legal, not just social, requirement that people be notified that you're recording them, particularly when it comes to audio, see one-party or two-party consent jurisdictions etc, while recording of direct threats may be legit, blanket recording of all interactions or of other people's conversations, as a precautionary measure, may not be)